John
I see no evidence of logic being "injected", only a refusal to accept
already presented logic and a refusal to accept what the argument is about.
Unfortunately this topic has a reputation - and a particular attraction to
anti-VTAM/SNA bigots - and you appear to have assumed - as have a number of
others - that I am objecting to *usage*. It is incorrect that I am objecting
to *usage* - even if the *usage* is "incorrect"[1].
The logic which has been presented is derived from what is available for all
to see in the manuals on the IBM bookshelves[1] and is irrefutable - or I
require seeing some "logic" which might attempt to challenge it.
It's ironic that, because I am objecting to *belief* and have clothed some
of my observations in the concepts of religion, you have assumed that the
argument is the "religious" argument. The argument I had with Phil Smith was
over his belief - not his usage. It was someone else who objected to his
usage and his response exposed his "heretical" belief.
So please do us all the honour of reading up on the topic before jumping in
with inappropriate comments.
Of course, I am not comfortable with USS used to mean UNIX System Services
as would be anyone who has worked for 30 years with USS in the context of
text messages between the VTAM System Services Control Point (SSCP) and an
end-user trying to start an SNA session.
Should a post appear again which has a title sufficiently accurate to catch
my attention as worth investigating and which uses the initials USS in a
TELNET context in such a way that there is confusion, I may well be
tempted - perhaps while endeavouring to give assistance - actually to point
out that the *usage* is inappropriate as well as strictly incorrect.
Well, let us try a little real logic finally. We can regard the domain of
usage of USS used to represent UNIX System Services as an area on a Venn
diagram. Equally we can regard the domain of usage of USS used to represent
Unformatted System Services as another area on the Venn diagram. This latter
was actually there first but we'll be generous and make room for others!
This is fine so long as the two areas do not overlap; each can live in happy
ignorance of the existence of the other.
Could such an eventuality apply? Let us assume that there is some new DASD
technology called, say, Unlimited Seek Selector which, of course, quickly
gets described in normal conversation and informal literature as USS with
both reinforcing the other. Because it's such a fantastic technical
breakthrough just about everyone is talking about it so that
a) 9 out of 10 threads on IBM-MAIN concern USS
b) because the developers made a bit of a mess creating the software to
support it, there are vary many APARs
c) ITSO puts out a series of redbooks describing how to get the best out of
it
Again we have another area on the Venn diagram called USS with, I hope, a
different colour!
The point about this DASD technology is that, the initials USS can be used
freely and, although many of the remaining threads on IBM-MAIN talk about
USS meaning UNIX System Services, because there is no possibility of
ambiguity, nobody turns a hair.
If someone is rash enough to state that he/she thought that USS referred
only to the DASD technology, he/she will be gently corrected to say that,
really, it means UNIX System Services. And somebody might - if still compos
mentis, with many typos caused by arthritic fingers - slip in the correction
that, really, it's a set of initials which belongs to VTAM from half a
century ago.
It's even possible that, despite there being an X-station-based GUI version
of everything that is now supported by TSO "full screen" programs such as
ISPF, some dyed-in-the-wool types still use TSO and, very rarely, someone
needs help with the TN3270 server. Suddenly there's one isolated post which
mentions USS and doesn't mean the DASD technology and doesn't mean UNIX
System Services - although it looks as if it might have something to do with
the latter.
Which brings us back to the situation today. In fact the areas on the Venn
diagram represented by UNIX System Services and Unformatted System Services
do overlap - just a little. First they overlap in the area of TELNET and
also, as indicated by Steve Thompson, in IBM support. Come to think of it,
I could see the same IBM support issue arising with my imaginary DASD
technology, at least where supporting software is concerned.
So there we are. I hope that's "logical" enough for you.
Chris Mason
[1] I had better try to avoid saying that USS for UNIX System Services is
*incorrect*. It is, of course, but only in the sense that it is "not
strictly correct". If I say "incorrect", it is a red rag to some bulls -
among whom are those who came charging out of their stalls this time - who
imagine I am restarting the religious argument. It is - I accept, although
with misgivings - convenient and, for that reason, appropriate to use USS to
mean UNIX System Services *most* of the time when there is no ambiguity
likely.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chase, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: The USS Heresy (was Patents, Copyrights, Profits, Flex and
Hercules)
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of R.S.
Chris Mason wrote:
> [ lots of stuff ]
[ snip ]
I read all the posts, including yours. A lot of text.
Actually I have other duties as well, so I did not pay to
much attention to each of them. Now I'm trying to guess your
point, but I cannot. I don't understand. In fact, even in the
post I respond to you mentioned a lot of things, including
anarchy, democracy and elections. I must be dumb, because I
still don't see any reason to avoid some acronyms.
Just as example: ETR means Electronic Technical Response and
External Time Reference. Both are allowed by acronyms
puritans. Sometimes it makes confusion. Why USS cannot be
used as Unix System Services, since English language rules
don't say acronym cannot be ambigous, and have to be approved by IBM.
You are attempting to inject logic and reason into what is essentially a
"religious" argument. You are inevitably doomed to fail.......
-jc-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
